Veneer removal using Er:YAG laser

Dr Statila Pyke

Wed. 19. November 2025

save

Veneer removal using rotary instruments can be time-consuming and risks damaging the underlying tooth structure. The Er:YAG laser offers a conservative and minimally invasive alternative. The laser emits light that penetrates the ceramic veneer, leaving it intact, and is absorbed by water molecules within the luting cement. This absorption leads to micro-explosions and vaporisation of the cement components, facilitating debonding of the restoration.

Case presentation

A 60-year-old female patient presented with a generally good medical history and moderate oral hygiene. Clinical examination revealed generalised gingival recession and a minimally restored dentition. The patient had received ten maxillary composite veneers over a decade ago, and these were subsequently replaced with porcelain veneers by another clinician two years prior to presentation. The replacement was prompted by staining of the composite restorations.

However, the patient expressed dissatisfaction with the veneer on the maxillary right canine, describing it as protrusive and interfering with her upper lip. Although she had communicated this concern to the original treating dentist, she was discouraged by the suggested conventional rotary removal method and the associated cost of replacing the veneer, which she would have had to bear despite her long-standing dissatisfaction.

Acting on a referral from a friend who had undergone laser dental treatment, the patient sought a consultation at our clinic for a minimally invasive approach to resolving her concern. The patient emphasised a strong desire to maintain an aesthetically pleasing smile and overall appearance.

Clinical diagnosis and rationale for laser use

Upon clinical examination, the maxillary right canine veneer was found to be improperly seated, particularly at the buccal gingival margin. This confirmed the patient’s complaint of excessive protrusion and an elongated incisal edge (Fig. 1).

Fig. 2

The treatment plan was to conservatively remove the veneer using Er:YAG laser technology, clean and condition both the tooth surface and the veneer, and recement the veneer in a more favourable position. The patient was thoroughly informed of the procedure, including the possibility of veneer fracture during removal.

Studies have shown that Er:YAG laser use does not result in significant increases in pulpal temperature, making it a safe modality. Debonding typically occurs within the cement layer and at the veneer–cement interface. Factors influencing the time required for removal include the surface area of the prepared tooth, the thickness of the restoration and the composition of the luting cement. Veneers fabricated from lithium disilicate, as in this case, tend to be more amenable to laser removal owing to their minimal thickness and relatively small surface area coverage compared with crowns.

Laser parameters and technique

No local anaesthesia was required. The LightWalker AT-S laser system (Fotona) with an H02 tipless handpiece was selected for this procedure (Fig. 2). Treatment was initiated using the following parameters:

Laser wavelength: Er:YAG, 2,940 nm
Mode: SSP
Energy: 180–200 mJ
Frequency: 12 Hz
Power: 15 W
Water–air: 4:2.

The veneer surface was scanned in a slow, circular and continuous motion—from gingival to incisal and mesial to distal—including the palatal aspect. After the first minute with no apparent veneer loosening, the energy was increased to 200 mJ to facilitate debonding.

The laser procedure was carried out with consistent water cooling. The veneer was successfully debonded within approximately 2–3 minutes. A manual curette was gently applied at the margins to assist in lifting the veneer from the tooth. Both the veneer and the underlying tooth structure remained intact (Figs. 3 & 4). The veneer was cleaned, reconditioned and recemented in an improved position with optimal fit and aesthetics (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Postoperative outcome and follow-up

The patient reported no discomfort during the procedure and expressed high satisfaction with the treatment outcome. At the ten-day follow-up, she reported complete resolution of the previous discomfort caused by the veneer’s protrusion. Aesthetic integration and comfort had significantly improved, fulfilling both functional and cosmetic expectations.

Editorial note:

This article was published in cosmetic dentistry & facial aesthetics international Vol. 19, Issue 2/ 2025.